In terms of disclosure, I was an expert witness on behalf of former Justice J. Michael Eakin and I have written earlier articles on the case. The resolution of the Eakin case has raised some concern for at least those who practice in the area of judicial discipline. The conduct of the Court of Judicial Discipline (CJD), which ultimately led to the retirement of Eakin, and a $50,000 fine, raised some serious concerns. It is a concern because other similar cases in other jurisdictions normally resulted in a reprimand or a minor suspension. In these cases, public emails—as opposed to the private emails used in Eakin’s case—were involved.
The bigger concern was the fact that the CJD seemed to have an agenda as opposed to evaluating the case on an individual basis and following past precedent on the type of judicial discipline. Further, the court appeared to take a prosecutorial role in refusing to even hear or consider negotiated sanctions between the Judicial Conduct Board (JCB) and Eakin.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
